Exclusive to GlossyNews.com: Romney explains, “It’s a different 47%.”

In the aftermath of the 47% controversy, Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney was besieged with requests for clarification. However, this journalist was able to reach him in the shower and force him to answer questions before giving him his towel, which resulted in a surprising revelation.

GlossyNews.com: Mitt, what were you trying to say in the video before your words got in the way?

Mitt Romney: Barb, a lot of folks seem to think that I was complaining that 47% of Americans don’t pay federal income tax. That’s nonsense. I love people that don’t pay tax. Where would the Republican Party be without people who don’t pay tax? Our whole platform is built upon paying fewer and lower taxes.

GlossyNews.com: So who are the ones that you said are with Obama, are dependent on the government, believe that they are victims, that government has a responsibility to care for them, that they are entitled to food, to housing, to you-name-it?

Mitt Romney: That’s a different 47%, Barb. It’s a sad fact that 47% of Americans depend on government for employment, entitlement or welfare. Obviously, they will vote for Obama to keep that money coming.

GlossyNews.com: If that’s the case, it wouldn’t take much to push him over the top. What is your counter-strategy?

Mitt Romney: As I indicated in the video, if we reduce the number that depend on government payments for food, housing and similar needs, they will be less inclined to vote for whoever is in office.

GlossyNews.com: But you’re not in office yet. How are you going to make those reductions?

Mitt Romney: You’re right, Barb, but we can pledge to make them. And we are making that pledge.

GlossyNews.com: So you’re hoping to get the votes of people that depend on government money by promising to take that money away?

“This is a commitment we make to the wealthy, who don’t need the money”

Mitt Romney: No, of course not, Barb. This is a commitment we make to the wealthy, who don’t need the money and might end up paying for those that do.

GlossyNews.com: Then how do you get the votes of those who do need the money?

Mitt Romney: We do this by appealing to issues that really matter to them, like abortion, illegal immigration, creationist teachings in schools, same-sex marriage and similar concerns. These are much more important than food, shelter and health, for example.

GlossyNews.com: OK, let’s say that gets you into office. Then what?

Mitt Romney: That’s when we get rid of entitlements, welfare and government employees.

GlossyNews.com: But didn’t you just say that when you take those payments away, the people who depend upon them will be less likely to vote for whoever is in power? That’s you.

“We plan to do away with government and taxes altogether.”

Mitt Romney: Not a problem, Barb. As you know, we Republicans are dedicated to smaller government and lower taxes. We plan to do away with government and taxes altogether, in which case there will be no more elections. We call it neo-anarchy.

GlossyNews.com: I’m familiar with the concept of anarchy, which has been proposed by anarchists and even communists. How is Republican neo-anarchy different?

Mitt Romney: Traditional anarchism and communism provide for members of society to take care of each other so that everyone is fed, clothed and housed. We oppose these socialist ideas.

GlossyNews.com: So what would happen to people that are unable to feed, clothe and house themselves, such as the elderly and disabled?

Mitt Romney: If they or their loved ones have not prepared for such situations, why should anyone else?

GlossyNews.com: What happened to the idea of compassionate conservatism?

Mitt Romney: Oh, believe me, we have tons of compassion. We just want to do away with all the nonverbal expressions of compassion, such as social security, Medicare, and everything else that requires spending.

GlossyNews.com: Won’t that result in a tremendous rise in poverty, disease, homelessness, starvation and death?

Mitt Romney: Not among the wealthy, Barb. And who do you think is funding this campaign?